About Me

The idea behind this blog is to collect information on the death penalty in India and make it accessible. We are trying our best to put the latest information on the people who are currently on death row, the status of their cases, their mercy petitions and also the information on any death sentence across the country. Please feel free to write us and give us your suggestions and comments and also any information you have come across regarding the death penalty in India. Our email id is abolishdeathpenaltyindia@gmail.com The blog is currently managed by Grace Pelly, Lara Jesani, Nitu Sanadhya, Rebecca Gonsalvez, Reena Mary George and Vijay Hiremath.
Kindly mark copies of the emails to:
vijayhiremath@gmail.com
reena.mary.george@univie.ac.at

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Grey area between life and death

CHENNAI: So, legally speaking, what lies between life and death? A lot of grey area, really. Indian criminal jurisprudence does not prescribe death as punishment for a particular offence, however heinous the crime may be. For instance, the maximum punishment provided for in our statute book is not death. Instead, it is "death sentence or life imprisonment."

After holding a person guilty of having committed a heinous offence, a judge has neither legislative policy nor legal principles nor judicial precedents for guidance to impose an appropriate punishment. While highlighting this lacuna, legendary jurist Justice P N Bhagwati says whether it would be a mere life imprisonment or death sentence is decided by the judge's "unguided discretion". In other words, what qualifies as "rarest of rare cases" warranting capital punishment is to be decided on a case to case basis by the judges concerned.

The enormity of this observation would hit us if we apply it on the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.

For some reasons, the special TADA court here found all the 26 persons guilty of committing a rarest of rare offence and imposed death sentence on all in 1996. The appeals directly went to the Supreme Court. In 1998, the Supreme Court confirmed death only for four and the remaining convicts simply walked free. In 2000 the death sentence of one of these four, Nalini Sriharan, was commuted to life after a state cabinet recommendation.

From being a part of the 26-strong death convict group, now only three are staring down the barrel.

The Amnesty International, while advocating the total abolition of death sentence throughout the world, cites three reasons to do away with the punishment. Firstly, adopting a religious attitude, it says life is a gift of God/nature, and none except God/nature has any right to take it away.

Secondly, citing economic disparity, it says a litigant's inability to afford a good lawyer has direct nexus to the quantum of punishment. The Amnesty cites the fact that about 90 per cent of convicts in various prisons in the world are underprivileged who could not pay hefty fee to a good lawyer. Thirdly, the fallibility of human judgment is a reason enough not to kill a person even by lawful procedure.

There are, however, judicial officers who feel they have been truly judicious and balanced in choosing cases to award death sentence. "In my 28 year service, nine years of which as sessions judge having power to impose capital punishment, I have not exercised the option even once. Not that I am against death punishment. I have not yet come across that 'rarest of rare case'. We are responsible people. I will not hesitate to award death penalty if acase deserves," a sessions judge told The Times of India.

He says the death penalty should remain in the statute book, to be invoked in deserving cases. "Even if it is not used even once, it will instill a sense of fear in habitual offenders and act as deterrence," he says. Incidentally, the Vellore central prison, where the three condemned prisoners involved in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case are lodged, has a total of six death row convicts and 290 life convicts. A tell-tale evidence that extreme judicial restraint is being exercised before noose is put around a person's neck.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Facebook Badge

The Death Penalty Scenario in India

The Indian government is committed to the retention of the death penalty. In December 2007 India was among the minority of countries who voted at the United Nations General Assembly against a moratorium on executions.

India retains the death penalty as punishment for a number of crimes including murder, kidnapping, terrorism, desertion, inducement to suicide of a minor or a mentally-retarded person and has more recently in 2013 come to include the offence of rape in certain circumstances. It is mandatory for second convictions for drug trafficking offences.

Death sentences are carried out by hanging. In 1983 the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of this method, stating that it: “involves no barbarity, torture or degradation.”

After observing an unofficial moratorium of 8 years in India, the Indian Government in November 2012 carried out the execution of Ajmal Kasab, convicted in the Mumbai attacks case, without public knowledge. This was followed by the secret execution of Afzal Guru, convicted in the Parliament attack case of 2001, in February 2013, under similar circumstances, without intimating his immediate family or affording a chance of judicial review. In both cases, the executions were carried out under covert operations conducted by the Government immediately upon rejection of their mercy petitions. Before these executions, the last execution to be carried out in India was that of Dhananjoy Chatterjee in 2004 who was convicted of rape and murder and which sentence was carried out after he had spent 13 years in solitary confinement.

Following this, several mercy petitions of death row convicts have come to be rejected. The fear of execution of such convicts is imminent. Bolstered by the Government's unapologetic conduct and public outcry, especially in recent cases of rape and murder reported in the country, the courts are continuing to hand down death sentences at an alarming rate.

There is very little information on the number of people sentenced to death in India. According to the National Crime Records Bureau, 1,455 convicts were awarded the death penalty during the period 2001-2011. The actual figure of sentences originally awarded is much higher considering the death sentences of 4,321 convicts came to be commuted to life imprisonment in the said period.

That the imposition of death penalty is ineffective in controlling crime rate or deterring crimes, is widely known and even accepted on the basis of exhaustive research and statistics. Inherently there are serious flaws in capital sentencing. DNA evidence is not used, death sentences can be given by a majority rather than a unanimous bench and many convictions for death sentences are based entirely on circumstantial evidence. This coupled with a faulty criminal law enforcement system and admittedly high corruption levels in the police force investigating the crime, increases the chances of false convictions. In such a scenario, the correctness of conviction resulting in the ultimate sentence of capital punishment relies on a system of trial and error.

Also, the handing over of the death penalty is dependent on various variable factors such as existing biases amongst law enforcers, social biases, media reports and public outcry, social and financial status of the accused, quality of legal representation and last but not the least, the bent of mind of the judges.

During the 1980s the Supreme Court sought to restrict the use of the death penalty by characterizing it as a punishment reserved only for the “rarest of the rare” cases. The doctrine has not had the desired effect. According to a former chief justice of the Delhi High Court, Rajindar Sachar: “after the rarest of rare doctrine was introduced in 1980, the Supreme Court confirmed death penalty in 40 per cent of cases in the period 1980-90 while it was 37.7 per cent between 1970 and 1980. For the high courts it rose from 59 per cent in 1970-80 to 65 per cent during 1980-90”. Over the past two decades the death penalty has been extended to include more crimes and been handed down with increasing frequency.

Paradoxically, whilst the “rarest of the rare” doctrine has been used to limit and restrict the use of the mandatory death penalty elsewhere in the world, it has often had the opposite effect in India. It has enabled judges to justify imposing sentences of death in an arbitrary manner, reinforcing the deeply flawed character of capital punishment in India today.

Recently in April 2013, in a petition filed by Devender Pal Singh Bhullar in the Supreme Court, delay in deciding his clemency plea was ruled out as a ground to commute his death sentence to life imprisonment. Devender Pal Singh Bhullar had approached the Supreme Court in 2011 after the President rejected his mercy petition after 8 years. The said judgment may have a far reaching effect on similar cases where mercy petitions have remained pending with the President for inordinate periods of time.